Bismarck construction flaws

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by alecsandros » Thu May 17, 2012 6:02 pm

RF wrote:
alecsandros wrote: They devoted much more attention to protection than to offensive power... knowing the ship would fight at a disadvandtage in numbers, so they armored it as best as possible to ensure survivability in hostile waters.
There is an irony here - if there is a disadvantage in firepower, with no real regard to the 35,000 ton weight restriction, why not beef up the firepower? Say with triple turrets of 15 inch and triple turrets of 5 inch DP in place of the 5.9 inch and 4.1 inch batteries? That could have been done without substantially reducing armour protection? Or speed?
The salvos were very well grouped, accurate and rapid with the 4 x 2 arrangement. For elevations up to 16,5*, corresponding to ranges up to 25km, the guns could deliver 3 shells/minute.
Vertical perforation was very good, and combined with the accuracy and rapid straddling obtained with the 4x2 arrangement, it meant death to most likely opponents...

And there is redundancy... One hit could take out 25% of the ship's battery if it had 4 turrets, or 33% if it had 3.
The Germans usualy opted for spreading of the armament, to last as long as possible (it's the same in the secondaries - 12 x 150mm + 16 x 105mm - more than any other battleship)

It is very interesting to observe that all German battleships constructed or planned featured the 4 x 2 guns arrangement.
Baden class, Bismarck class, H-class (H-39 to H-44)...

Yes, 16" would have been better, at least in terms of internal destruction caused by the shells, if not necessarily in terms of perforation. Hitler wanted the 15" changed with 16" ' ers, somewhere in 1938-39, but work was to advanced to make the modifications required.

----

The Japanese would probably have built a 50.000 tons ship with 8x16" guns, 400mm belt and 150mm decks covering 50% of the waterline, and 30-31kts, with 3-4000 tons of oil reserves.

The Americans may have built a 50.000 ton ship with 12 x 16" guns, 300mm internal belt inclined at 19*, 150mm decks covering 50% of the waterline, and a speed of 28-29kts...

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by yellowtail3 » Thu May 17, 2012 9:48 pm

If the US was contracted to build the BIsmarck... well. Easiest would be, sell them a North Carolina - it'll have longer legs and do the job. They want faster, and they want the Bismarck's hull size/layout/armor setup? Okay... First off, trade out those four 15" twins for three 16" triples. Go ahead and use the 16/50, it's only a few hundred tons heavier and will much increase hitting power. If the extra 500 tons is a bother, then use the 16"/45 - it'll be lighter than 15" arrangement. Or, keep the long gun and shave an inch or so of turret/barbette armor, it'll still be thicker than the orig 15" setup.
On the idea that 4x2 is better than 3x3... I don't buy it. Each ship loses a turret, each ship is left with 6 guns... but six 16"/50 (or /45) is better than six 15", I say.

Then, swap out the entire secondary battery for a bunch of 5/38s. There's plenty of room weight/capacity to mount a bunch - 20, 22, 24? - with space leftover for light weapons, maybe a few 1.1 mounts, soon to be replaced by 20mm and 40mm. The 1.1 should be better than the 37mm mounts - yes/no?

Put in some better engines for longer legs, and... strengthen that gimpy stern. There you go.
Shift Colors... underway.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by RF » Fri May 18, 2012 8:36 am

alecsandros wrote: It is very interesting to observe that all German battleships constructed or planned featured the 4 x 2 guns arrangement.
Baden class, Bismarck class, H-class (H-39 to H-44)...
But not Scharnhorst - or the so-called pocket battleships. Note also the triple turrets used in the light cruisers as well, combined with the unique layout.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by alecsandros » Fri May 18, 2012 8:40 am

Indeed, but they weren't battleships...

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by RF » Fri May 18, 2012 5:00 pm

Agreed - but the Germans called Scharnhorst a battleship and not a battlecruiser, which was the British Admiralty classification.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by alecsandros » Fri May 18, 2012 5:58 pm

Perhaps, but they were experimental ships at best...

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by RF » Mon May 21, 2012 6:11 pm

They were hybrid ships - the triple 11 inch were due to be replaced with 15 inch, but the key thing is that they were ''schlachtschiffe'' right from the start.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

alecsandros
Senior Member
Posts: 4349
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by alecsandros » Mon May 21, 2012 6:35 pm

What is essential is that they weren't "ships of the line"

BobaFettSlave_1
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 5:30 am
Location: USA Mass
Contact:

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by BobaFettSlave_1 » Tue May 22, 2012 9:12 am

I'm a supporter of the 4x2's being a better design than the 3x3's. Especially when you look at what happened with the Graf Spee(yes I know she only had 2X3's but the point is the same). You can spread out your fire evenly between up to 4 different targets if need be. Where as if you only had 3x3's, while you are able to put more rounds down range at said target with each individual turret, you cannot evenly distribute rounds between targets. Not to mention if you do loose a turret with 3x3's you are down to 2 working turrets as apposed to 3 with the 4x2's

How about some 4x3's in 16'' :whistle:

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by RF » Tue May 22, 2012 5:28 pm

Yes - but think of the extra tonnage.

But if that doesn't matter - how about true symmetry - 4 quad turrets of 16 inch?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

ede144
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by ede144 » Tue May 22, 2012 7:13 pm

RF wrote:Yes - but think of the extra tonnage.

But if that doesn't matter - how about true symmetry - 4 quad turrets of 16 inch?
I wonder how the super structure would look like. With the blast of a full salvo?

regards
ede

PS It might be strange for Americans, but more and bigger is not always better :-)

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by yellowtail3 » Thu May 24, 2012 5:44 am

ede144 wrote:regards
ede

PS It might be strange for Americans, but more and bigger is not always better :-)
Well, regarding battleships, bigger generally is better; Bismarck & Tirpitz are an exception to that generality...
Shift Colors... underway.

Lutscha
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:20 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by Lutscha » Thu May 24, 2012 7:40 am

yellowtail3 wrote:
ede144 wrote:regards
ede

PS It might be strange for Americans, but more and bigger is not always better :-)
Well, regarding battleships, bigger generally is better; Bismarck & Tirpitz are an exception to that generality...
Remember thath KGV and SoDak are nowhere near 35k standard displacement (only through letting out weight which had to be included) and are 38k standard, while BS was 41,7k. BS was the best armoured (I would not have written that a year ago) of them and faster. That BS weights much more at full load is due to her bunkerage.

ede144
Member
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by ede144 » Thu May 24, 2012 9:10 pm

@yellowtail
Why an eexception?
They had neither the largest nor the most guns
Which of the larger BB's proved it's ccapabilities againstso many other BB'S
Regards
Ede

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Bismarck construction flaws

Post by yellowtail3 » Thu May 24, 2012 11:50 pm

ede144 wrote:@yellowtail
Why an eexception?
They had neither the largest nor the most guns
Which of the larger BB's proved it's ccapabilities againstso many other BB'S
Regards
Ede
Exception... I think the South Dakotas were somewhat better ships, if we're measuring by the pound (or kilo) and they were a little smaller. Not a a great diff, but enough to make that exception... a notable exception. Otherwise.. when it comes to warships, guns, horsepower, and bank accounts... bigger is generally better. Most of the time.
Shift Colors... underway.

Post Reply